Groundspeak Forums: Geocaching May Be Outlawed In South Carolina - Groundspeak Forums

Jump to content

  • (7 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

Geocaching May Be Outlawed In South Carolina House Bill H.3777

#1 User is offline   wkhaz 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 56
  • Joined: 20-October 04

  Posted 18 March 2005 - 05:29 PM

House bill H. 3777, if passed, will make it unlawful for a person to engage in the activity of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery, archeological sites, or on the historic properties of the State.

The bill was introduced by Representatives Ceips, Loftis, Breeland, Scott, Whipper, Bowers, Hosey, Vaughn, Anthony, Battle, Chalk, Clyburn, Dantzler, Hardwick, Harvin,
Herbkersman, J. Hines, Howard, Jefferson, Kirsh, Lee, Martin, McCraw, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J.H. Neal, Perry, M.A. Pitts, Rivers, Scarborough, Simrill,
Toole and Umphlett.

http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/query2...77&printornot=N

Please contact you representative and let him/her know that (as a registered voter) you do not support this legislation.

A bill TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-17-605 SO AS TO DEFINE THE TERMS "GEOCACHE", "GEOCACHING", AND "LETTERBOXING", TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO ENGAGE IN GEOCACHING OR LETTERBOXING IN CEMETERIES, ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES, OR ON THE HISTORIC PROPERTIES OF THE STATE, AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY.

SECTION 1. Article 7, Chapter 17, Title 16 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 16-17-605. A. For the purposes of this section:

(1) 'Geocache' means the container that serves the purpose of providing a place to store small items or logbooks which are intentionally placed by their owners.

(2) 'Geocaching' means the activity of hiding a geocache container from public view for the challenge of participants using a global positioning system (GPS) device and internet published coordinates to locate the geocache.

(3) 'Letterboxing' means an activity similar to geocaching in which the participant takes directions and uses those directions to find a hidden object. The directions normally are in the form of a riddle, and the hidden object is a stamp that the participant uses to stamp a piece of paper to prove he has visited the site.

B. It is unlawful for a person to engage in the activity of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery, archeological sites, or on the historic properties of the State, as defined in Section 60-12-10(4).

C. A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than thirty days.

D. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection ©, the judge, in his discretion, may order a person convicted of a violation of this section to perform up to one hundred hours of community service.

E. The provisions of this section do not preclude a person from being charged with a violation of Section 16-17-600 in addition to a violation of this section."

SECTION 2. The repeal or amendment by this act of any law, whether temporary or permanent or civil or criminal, does not affect pending actions, rights, duties, or liabilities founded thereon, or alter, discharge, release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under the repealed or amended law, unless the repealed or amended provision shall so expressly provide. After the effective date of this act, all laws repealed or amended by this act must be taken and treated as remaining in full force and effect for the purpose of sustaining any pending or vested right, civil action, special proceeding, criminal prosecution, or appeal existing as of the effective date of this act, and for the enforcement of rights, duties, penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities as they stood under the repealed or amended laws.

SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

#2 User is offline   sbell111 

  • Charter Member
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 20530
  • Joined: 04-June 01

Posted 18 March 2005 - 05:32 PM

Time to write your congressmen, folks.

#3 User is offline   Stony2008  

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 30-July 04

Posted 18 March 2005 - 05:36 PM

Thats just wrong :lol:

this could get serious. like if other states see them doing it they might do it. Geocaching could become the new "drug " (it is addicting just dont tell them that)

This post has been edited by Stony2008: 18 March 2005 - 05:47 PM


#4 User is offline   AndrewRJ 

  • Go Seahawks!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1218
  • Joined: 30-December 03

Posted 18 March 2005 - 05:41 PM

wkhaz, on Mar 18 2005, 05:29 PM, said:

D. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection , the judge, in his discretion, may order a person convicted of a violation of this section to perform up to one hundred hours of community service.

Not to be a smart a** but could CITO'ing be consitered your 100 hours of community service... while caching of course.

AndrewRJ

#5 User is offline   Mr. Snazz 

  • High Desert Cacher
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 1470
  • Joined: 04-February 02

Posted 18 March 2005 - 05:42 PM

The new "percent quotesign"?


This isn't much different from existing policies to keep people from setting up trample points on managed lands. The topic is misleading; this isn't banning geocaching in SC, its banning it on certain state owned/regulated properties.

This post has been edited by Mr. Snazz: 18 March 2005 - 05:44 PM


#6 User is offline   GixxerUT 

  • Going For The One
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 167
  • Joined: 18-December 04

Posted 18 March 2005 - 05:46 PM

is the whole state a cemetary, archaelogical site, or historic property of the state?

#7 User is offline   Team Tecmage 

  • Mmmmmm.... gps!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 782
  • Joined: 15-February 01

Posted 18 March 2005 - 05:48 PM

I wonder if it is legal to go 4-wheeling or use any ATV/OTVs on state propoerty in SC?

#8 User is offline   Stony2008  

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 30-July 04

Posted 18 March 2005 - 05:49 PM

oh crap, it wont be completely outlawed just in certain areas. I need to read things a little more careful. The tittle can be misleading.

This post has been edited by Stony2008: 18 March 2005 - 05:52 PM


#9 User is offline   gnbrotz 

  • jee en bee rotts
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1282
  • Joined: 26-April 01

Posted 18 March 2005 - 05:55 PM

The proposed ban seems reasonable to me. It's in line with many policies already in existence which exclude caches on National Park land and ecologically sensitive areas in many states.

#10 User is offline   Kealia 

  • Where's the Precious....?
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4203
  • Joined: 14-June 03

Posted 18 March 2005 - 06:03 PM

Great, two more stats to add to the profile page:

# of fines
# of days spent in jail

:lol:

#11 User is offline   CoyoteRed 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7122
  • Joined: 22-August 02

Posted 18 March 2005 - 06:10 PM

If this passes I will have to pull at least 7 of our caches.

Quote

B. It is unlawful for a person to engage in the activity of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery, archaeological sites, or on the historic properties of the State, as defined in Section 60-12-10(4).
Which, technically, means you can't waypoint through an banned site. Just about the whole city of Charleston and surrounding areas is a historical or archaeological site. Note, cemeteries and archaeological sites are banned outright. Historical sites owned by someone else other than the state are still open under this law. However, a good portion is owned by the state. I'm in a park because it is owned by a power company which in turn is owned by the state--those would have to go.

There are numerous caches that are in or go through a cemetery, those would be banned. I've got one in a county-owned park, but is an archaeological site--placed by permission--but would be banned under state law.

What's ironic is all but one of the caches that would be banned have specific authorization from the land stewards. The remaining one was adopted so I don't really know.

Disturbing, but not really surprising. This is South Carolina, after all.

This post has been edited by CoyoteRed: 18 March 2005 - 06:15 PM


#12 User is offline   Camo-crazed 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26-July 04

Posted 18 March 2005 - 06:12 PM

wkhaz, on Mar 18 2005, 05:29 PM, said:

(1)    'Geocache' means the container that serves the purpose of providing a place to store small items or logbooks which are intentionally placed by their owners.

So if you used a waterproof logbook without a container, you could hide one anywhere you wanted? I love loopholes .Posted Image

This post has been edited by Camo-crazed: 18 March 2005 - 06:13 PM


#13 User is offline   Stony2008  

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 30-July 04

Posted 18 March 2005 - 06:14 PM

Quote

So if you used a waterproof logbook without a container, you could hide one anywhere you wanted? I love loopholes

Quote

or logbooks which are intentionally placed by their owners.



Im starting to read more carefully. :lol:

This post has been edited by Stony2008: 18 March 2005 - 06:21 PM


#14 User is offline   wkhaz 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 56
  • Joined: 20-October 04

Posted 18 March 2005 - 06:17 PM

Just my thoughts on this but...

the new law seemingly would follow SECTION 16-17-600 which, in part, concerns the "Destruction or desecration of human remains or repositories thereof..."

I believe the proposed law would include ALL cemeteries in SC (public or private). In addition, in SC, archeological sites are located on both public and private property.

The new law would be under:
Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses, Chapter 17 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, Article 7 - MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES.

This applies statewide, with other laws such as:

SECTION 16-17-410. Conspiracy
SECTION 16-17-450. Refusal to relinquish party telephone line for emergency call.
SECTION 16-17-470. Eavesdropping, peeping, voyeurism.
and...
SECTION 16-17-490. Contributing to delinquency of a minor.

#15 User is offline   Camo-crazed 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26-July 04

Posted 18 March 2005 - 06:21 PM

Stony2008, on Mar 18 2005, 06:14 PM, said:

Quote

So if you used a waterproof logbook without a container, you could hide one anywhere you wanted? I love loopholes .

Quote

or logbooks which are intentionally placed by their owners.



Im starting to read more carefully. :lol:

However, I read carefully too. It says,

Quote

'Geocache' means the container that serves the purpose of providing a place to store small items or logbooks which are intentionally placed by their owners.


#16 User is offline   Stony2008  

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 30-July 04

Posted 18 March 2005 - 06:23 PM

Dang you got me there :unsure: . well done :lol: .

#17 User is offline   Camo-crazed 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26-July 04

Posted 18 March 2005 - 06:24 PM

Stony2008, on Mar 18 2005, 06:23 PM, said:

Dang you got me there :wacko: . well done :lol: .

Nyah Nyah Nyah :unsure:

#18 User is offline   Stony2008  

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 30-July 04

Posted 18 March 2005 - 06:25 PM

:lol:

#19 User is offline   cache_test_dummies 

  • Already gone
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 17-January 03

Posted 18 March 2005 - 06:53 PM

wkhaz, on Mar 18 2005, 10:17 PM, said:

This applies statewide, with other laws such as:

Well, as I see it, these existing laws are kind of standing in the way of geocaching too:

Quote

SECTION 16-17-410. Conspiracy

We're all part of a subversive group sneaking around on public property, leaving notes to each other in hidden locations.

Quote

SECTION 16-17-450. Refusal to relinquish party telephone line for emergency call.

Maybe not exactly the same thing, but lets say I can't find the cache after crawling around in the thorns and slapping mosquitos in a swamp for an hour and a half. I use my cell phone to call a friend who found the cache last week, and while he's 'hinting' me in, my wife is suddenly trying to call me too. I love my wife, and she wouldn't call me unless it was important, but I'm NOT taking the call until the cache is in my hands.

Quote

SECTION 16-17-470. Eavesdropping, peeping, voyeurism.

No more planting nanocaches outside your office window so you can watch people crawl in the bushes at the edge your parking lot at lunch time.

Quote

SECTION 16-17-490. Contributing to delinquency of a minor.

C'mon, son - I know you're tired and hungry, and we've been searching under rocks in the desert all morning, but I'm sure it's here somewhere. Your teachers probably won't even notice that you're three hours late for school ...

#20 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38087
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 18 March 2005 - 07:01 PM

When geocaching is outlawed only outlaws will geocache. Seriously, this is another example of what happens when our representatives have too much time on their hands. Some "concerned" citizen with a little pull probably got the ear of a state representative and the next thing you know it snowballed. I doubt the citizens of South Carolina were clamoring for this legislation.

The thing that really concerns me is that most of the states have copycat legislatures. "If South Carolina wrote geocaching legislation, it must be something we have to address too".

#21 User is offline   Team Cotati 

  • US Geocacher of the Year 2004,2006,2009
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 5698
  • Joined: 09-September 04

Posted 18 March 2005 - 07:10 PM

wkhaz, on Mar 18 2005, 05:29 PM, said:

House bill H. 3777, if passed, will make it unlawful for a person to engage in the activity of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery, archeological sites, or on the historic properties of the State. 

The bill was introduced by Representatives Ceips, Loftis, Breeland, Scott, Whipper, Bowers, Hosey, Vaughn, Anthony, Battle, Chalk, Clyburn, Dantzler, Hardwick, Harvin, 
Herbkersman, J. Hines, Howard, Jefferson, Kirsh, Lee, Martin, McCraw, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J.H. Neal, Perry, M.A. Pitts, Rivers, Scarborough, Simrill,
Toole and Umphlett.

http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/query2...77&printornot=N

Please contact you representative and let him/her know that (as a registered voter) you do not support this legislation.

A bill TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-17-605 SO AS TO DEFINE THE TERMS "GEOCACHE", "GEOCACHING", AND "LETTERBOXING", TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO ENGAGE IN GEOCACHING OR LETTERBOXING IN CEMETERIES, ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES, OR ON THE HISTORIC PROPERTIES OF THE STATE, AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY.

SECTION    1.    Article 7, Chapter 17, Title 16 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 16-17-605.    A.    For the purposes of this section:

(1)    'Geocache' means the container that serves the purpose of providing a place to store small items or logbooks which are intentionally placed by their owners.

(2)    'Geocaching' means the activity of hiding a geocache container from public view for the challenge of participants using a global positioning system (GPS) device and internet published coordinates to locate the geocache.

(3)    'Letterboxing' means an activity similar to geocaching in which the participant takes directions and uses those directions to find a hidden object. The directions normally are in the form of a riddle, and the hidden object is a stamp that the participant uses to stamp a piece of paper to prove he has visited the site.

B.    It is unlawful for a person to engage in the activity of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery, archeological sites, or on the historic properties of the State, as defined in Section 60-12-10(4).

C.    A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than thirty days.

D.    Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection , the judge, in his discretion, may order a person convicted of a violation of this section to perform up to one hundred hours of community service.

E.    The provisions of this section do not preclude a person from being charged with a violation of Section 16-17-600 in addition to a violation of this section."

SECTION 2.    The repeal or amendment by this act of any law, whether temporary or permanent or civil or criminal, does not affect pending actions, rights, duties, or liabilities founded thereon, or alter, discharge, release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under the repealed or amended law, unless the repealed or amended provision shall so expressly provide. After the effective date of this act, all laws repealed or amended by this act must be taken and treated as remaining in full force and effect for the purpose of sustaining any pending or vested right, civil action, special proceeding, criminal prosecution, or appeal existing as of the effective date of this act, and for the enforcement of rights, duties, penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities as they stood under the repealed or amended laws.

SECTION 3.    This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

Hysterics.

Come to think on it: "House bill H. 3777, if passed, will make it unlawful for a person to engage in the activity of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery, archeological sites, or on the historic properties of the State."

I think that I actually support this idea.

This post has been edited by Team cotati697: 18 March 2005 - 07:13 PM


#22 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38087
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 18 March 2005 - 07:16 PM

Quote

I think that I actually support this idea.


Since historic sites are among my favorite places to both hide and find caches, I strongly disagree.

#23 User is offline   Camo-crazed 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26-July 04

Posted 18 March 2005 - 07:20 PM

I hope my TB never gets to South Carolina then, because it wants to go to cemeteries

#24 User is offline   WxGuesser 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 08-July 04

Posted 18 March 2005 - 07:22 PM

Quote

(2)    'Geocaching' means the activity of hiding a geocache container from public view for the challenge of participants using a global positioning system (GPS) device and internet published coordinates to locate the geocache.


see even the lawyers don't use GPSr!!!!!

#25 User is offline   WRITE SHOP ROBERT 

  • Prize Winning Profile
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 5682
  • Joined: 11-August 03

Posted 18 March 2005 - 07:55 PM

here we go again with the BS forum titles

#26 User is offline   Camo-crazed 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26-July 04

Posted 18 March 2005 - 07:57 PM

WRITE SHOP ROBERT, on Mar 18 2005, 07:55 PM, said:

here we go again with the BS forum titles

heres a smiley you can use when you feel that way Posted Image http://community.the...ley/misc/bs.gif

#27 User is offline   nmbobster 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 23-January 05

  Posted 18 March 2005 - 08:23 PM

I am not from Carolina, but I would encourage all those that are to strongly lobby against this. I would argue that the law is not needed because arch sites and historic properties are already protected under federal law. Specifically the Antiquities Act and the Historic Preservation Act.

Cemetaries are not protected under these laws unless native americans are buried there, then they would be protected under the Native Graves and Re-Patranization Act. In any case I would stress that the placement of caches in or around any gravesite is not taken lightly and is usually done in honor.

I highly suspect that some archeologist or culteral resource person or group is behind this. Or more likely the State Historic Preservation Office (SHIPO). Every state has a SHIPO by federal law, if they are behind it I would argue that they are acting way outside thier bounds.

If you want to get to get some muscle behind the fight I would let the State tourism board know the potential financial impacts to the State if this legislation was passed. State tourism offices or boards seem to have a long history of fighting with SHIPO's, and at times even seem to enjoy it. At least it seems that way out West with the states I am familiar with.

There is a real danger in this to all of us. If the law gets passed the news will be published in professional journals and you could expect that similiar bills would appear in other states. I would not be willing to give them an inch. :lol:

#28 User is offline   WRITE SHOP ROBERT 

  • Prize Winning Profile
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 5682
  • Joined: 11-August 03

Posted 18 March 2005 - 09:25 PM

WRITE SHOP ROBERT, on Mar 18 2005, 07:55 PM, said:

here we go again with the BS forum titles

Sorry, I shouldn't be so rude, I'm getting tired though of forum titles and news headlines that are misleading in order to get people to read the subject.

The title of this thread in no way acurately represents the proposed legislation

Could we please try to keep some truth in the titles of our threads?

#29 User is offline   TetrAmigos 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 205
  • Joined: 06-March 05

Posted 18 March 2005 - 11:13 PM

Someone sure ticked off the wrong people in South Carolina! :lol: However, given the details of the legislation, I can't say it's all that bad either. The specific areas outlawed aren't typically areas I hope geocachers would seek placements.. but who knows?

#30 User is offline   The Jester 

  • This is my happy face!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4371
  • Joined: 24-April 01

Posted 18 March 2005 - 11:23 PM

WxGuesser, on Mar 18 2005, 08:22 PM, said:

Quote

(2)    'Geocaching' means the activity of hiding a geocache container from public view for the challenge of participants using a global positioning system (GPS) device and internet published coordinates to locate the geocache.


see even the lawyers don't use GPSr!!!!!


Nope, they're using GPSd - I think the 'r' makes more sense.

Back on topic: Cachers in the area need to start a letter/e-mail writing campaign to fully explain the sport and why the restrictions are going too far.

#31 User is offline   Beowulf83 

  • Hunter, Gatherer
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 85
  • Joined: 06-April 01

Posted 19 March 2005 - 05:40 AM

I agree that the title is misleading, however, there is some truth to it. As written, "historic properties of the State" could be broadly applied to most of the state parks, which hold a significant number of caches.

#32 User is offline   Shoobie & the Sand Crabs 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 282
  • Joined: 23-May 03

Posted 19 March 2005 - 06:14 AM

Kealia, on Mar 18 2005, 06:03 PM, said:

Great, two more stats to add to the profile page:

# of fines
# of days spent in jail

:ph34r:

:blink:

#33 User is offline   sbell111 

  • Charter Member
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 20530
  • Joined: 04-June 01

Posted 19 March 2005 - 06:16 AM

Are the SC cachers who will be affected doing anything about it, or just waiting for it to pass?

#34 User is offline   drat19 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1064
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 19 March 2005 - 06:33 AM

CoyoteRed, on Mar 18 2005, 06:10 PM, said:

If this passes I will have to pull at least 7 of our caches.

Quote

B. It is unlawful for a person to engage in the activity of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery, archaeological sites, or on the historic properties of the State, as defined in Section 60-12-10(4).
Which, technically, means you can't waypoint through an banned site. Just about the whole city of Charleston and surrounding areas is a historical or archaeological site. Note, cemeteries and archaeological sites are banned outright. Historical sites owned by someone else other than the state are still open under this law. However, a good portion is owned by the state. I'm in a park because it is owned by a power company which in turn is owned by the state--those would have to go.

There are numerous caches that are in or go through a cemetery, those would be banned. I've got one in a county-owned park, but is an archaeological site--placed by permission--but would be banned under state law.

What's ironic is all but one of the caches that would be banned have specific authorization from the land stewards. The remaining one was adopted so I don't really know.

Disturbing, but not really surprising. This is South Carolina, after all.

And in a cruelly ironic twist, CR, none of this seems to prevent folks from bombing non-would-be-banned areas in SC with "what some consider lame" micros...you think?

-Dave R.

(edit: "what some consider..." qualification)

This post has been edited by drat19: 19 March 2005 - 06:34 AM


#35 User is offline   sbell111 

  • Charter Member
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 20530
  • Joined: 04-June 01

Posted 19 March 2005 - 06:39 AM

Dave, you have a mean streak. :blink:

#36 User is offline   Gretch_Mess 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 05-January 04

Posted 19 March 2005 - 07:43 AM

Typical of a "red state".

#37 User is offline   CoyoteRed 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7122
  • Joined: 22-August 02

Posted 19 March 2005 - 07:53 AM

sbell111, on Mar 19 2005, 09:16 AM, said:

Are the SC cachers who will be affected doing anything about it, or just waiting for it to pass?

We're on it.

One of the steering commitee members is someone who knows plenty about, and is involved with, the workings of government. He is going to make a few phone calls and see what's going on. He has some suspicions, but needs to confirm it first.

#38 User is offline   CoyoteRed 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7122
  • Joined: 22-August 02

Posted 19 March 2005 - 07:58 AM

Gretch_Mess, on Mar 19 2005, 10:43 AM, said:

Typical of a "red state".

"Red state" has nothing to do with it, but I will keep folks informed. Probably won't know anything until sometime late into next week.

#39 User is offline   bigredmed 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 1617
  • Joined: 14-April 02

Posted 19 March 2005 - 08:15 AM

Gretch_Mess, on Mar 19 2005, 07:43 AM, said:

Typical of a "red state".

That sort of slam is inappropriate and hurtful.

#40 User is offline   drat19 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1064
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 19 March 2005 - 08:45 AM

sbell111, on Mar 19 2005, 06:39 AM, said:

Dave, you have a mean streak. :blink:

Perhaps, but as you know, I've been one of CR's biggest supporters around here re the subject of the proliferation of "what some consider lame" micros. So, although my post wasn't intended to be "mean" (and yes, I saw the smilie you included as well), the cruel irony was, in fact, just that.

-Dave R.

#41 User is offline   Hucklebuck 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 76
  • Joined: 17-June 02

Posted 19 March 2005 - 09:32 AM

We have several caches on Historical properties in Raleigh, as well as some in cemeteries. These tend to be the most thoughtfully placed, educational and interesting caches I've done. Think about your finds. Most virtuals will be banned. Most of the urban micros left will be the parking lot variety. :ph34r: This legislation is well intended, but probably unneccessary. this is going to be a political "uphill" battle. Imagine explaining the virtues of "playing a game" in a cemetery to muggles. :blink: Good luck down there guys, I hope you can pull it off.

#42 User is offline   sbell111 

  • Charter Member
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 20530
  • Joined: 04-June 01

Posted 19 March 2005 - 10:18 AM

Hucklebuck, on Mar 19 2005, 09:32 AM, said:

... Most virtuals will be banned. ...

Actually, the legislation, if passed as currently worded, would not ban any virts.

#43 User is offline   Team Cotati 

  • US Geocacher of the Year 2004,2006,2009
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 5698
  • Joined: 09-September 04

Posted 19 March 2005 - 03:26 PM

briansnat, on Mar 18 2005, 07:16 PM, said:

Quote

I think that I actually support this idea.


Since historic sites are among my favorite places to both hide and find caches, I strongly disagree.

"House bill H. 3777, if passed, will make it unlawful for a person to engage in the activity of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery, archeological sites, or on the historic properties of the State."

Well we sure as heckfire don't want the people of the Great State of South Carolina or any other state for that matter to interfere with your self-interest by preventing people from tromping over their cemeteries, archeological and historic properties. No we just can't tolerate that. Oh how I wish that I were a tax payer in the Great State of South Carolina.

#44 User is offline   QOCMike 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 232
  • Joined: 06-August 01

Posted 19 March 2005 - 03:27 PM

Beowulf83, on Mar 19 2005, 05:40 AM, said:

I agree that the title is misleading, however, there is some truth to it.  As written, "historic properties of the State" could be broadly applied to most of the state parks, which hold a significant number of caches.

The bill said:

...or on the historic properties of the State, as defined in Section 60-12-10(4).

SC State Code said:

60-12-10(4) "Historic properties" means those buildings, sites, objects, structures, and districts that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places.


The existing law referenced takes some of that discretion away. That'll leave most of the state parks out of this bill.

Looking forward to the update from the local group.

#45 User is offline   uber_bike_geek 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 485
  • Joined: 10-November 03

Posted 19 March 2005 - 04:02 PM

wkhaz, on Mar 18 2005, 05:29 PM, said:

(2)    'Geocaching' means the activity of hiding a geocache container from public view for the challenge of participants using a global positioning system (GPS) device and internet published coordinates to locate the geocache.

Ooh ooh! what if I don't need a GPS?? :P Does it still count as geocaching if I'm using a compass?? :D
Couldn't resist putting in my $0.02 (USD)!!

Happy Caching
Jeff

#46 User is offline   Team Cotati 

  • US Geocacher of the Year 2004,2006,2009
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 5698
  • Joined: 09-September 04

Posted 19 March 2005 - 04:36 PM

uber_bike_geek, on Mar 19 2005, 04:02 PM, said:

wkhaz, on Mar 18 2005, 05:29 PM, said:

(2)    'Geocaching' means the activity of hiding a geocache container from public view for the challenge of participants using a global positioning system (GPS) device and internet published coordinates to locate the geocache.

Ooh ooh! what if I don't need a GPS?? :P Does it still count as geocaching if I'm using a compass?? :D
Couldn't resist putting in my $0.02 (USD)!!

Happy Caching
Jeff

Dear Happy Cacher:

I think that it is safe to say that just as soon as the numbers of 'compass cachers' approaches that of GPSr cachers that the good people of the Great State of South Carolina will take whatever actions that they deem to be in the best interest of the citizens therein.

#47 User is offline   Camo-crazed 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26-July 04

Posted 19 March 2005 - 05:12 PM

Quote

Quote

(2)    'Geocaching' means the activity of hiding a geocache container from public view for the challenge of participants using a global positioning system (GPS) device and internet published coordinates to locate the geocache.


Ooh ooh! what if I don't need a GPS?? laugh.gif Does it still count as geocaching if I'm using a compass?? tongue.gif
Couldn't resist putting in my $0.02 (USD)!!


Quote

Quote

... Most virtuals will be banned. ...


Actually, the legislation, if passed as currently worded, would not ban any virts.


Quote

Quote

(1)    'Geocache' means the container that serves the purpose of providing a place to store small items or logbooks which are intentionally placed by their owners.


So if you used a waterproof logbook without a container, you could hide one anywhere you wanted?


This new law has more loopholes than swiss cheese

#48 User is offline   Team Cotati 

  • US Geocacher of the Year 2004,2006,2009
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 5698
  • Joined: 09-September 04

Posted 19 March 2005 - 05:56 PM

Camo-crazed, on Mar 19 2005, 05:12 PM, said:

Quote

Quote

(2)    'Geocaching' means the activity of hiding a geocache container from public view for the challenge of participants using a global positioning system (GPS) device and internet published coordinates to locate the geocache.


Ooh ooh! what if I don't need a GPS?? laugh.gif Does it still count as geocaching if I'm using a compass?? tongue.gif
Couldn't resist putting in my $0.02 (USD)!!


Quote

Quote

... Most virtuals will be banned. ...


Actually, the legislation, if passed as currently worded, would not ban any virts.


Quote

Quote

(1)    'Geocache' means the container that serves the purpose of providing a place to store small items or logbooks which are intentionally placed by their owners.


So if you used a waterproof logbook without a container, you could hide one anywhere you wanted?


This new law has more loopholes than swiss cheese

I wonder why they didn't ban virtuals? So, are you volunteering to be the first to tell the "swiss cheese" story to the park ranger who walks up and tells you "Sir, you may not know this, but what you are doing is illegal in the Great State of South Carolina"? Are you volunteering for this important freedom to cache assignment? Oh to be a beetle on the trunk of a nearby tree. If they only made insect sized video cameras. LOL

This post has been edited by Team cotati697: 19 March 2005 - 06:47 PM


#49 User is offline   fly46 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2499
  • Joined: 04-June 03

Posted 19 March 2005 - 06:39 PM

Camo-crazed, on Mar 19 2005, 05:12 PM, said:


Quote

Quote

(1)    'Geocache' means the container that serves the purpose of providing a place to store small items or logbooks which are intentionally placed by their owners.


So if you used a waterproof logbook without a container, you could hide one anywhere you wanted?


This new law has more loopholes than swiss cheese

I have you burst your loophole excitement. At our last meeting, the local reviewer said that GC is cracking down on caches... Now they pretty much have to be log book AND container.

On the other hand, since you won't legally be able to place a real cache there, they might be loser on the virt thing.

#50 User is offline   CacheKestrel 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 45
  • Joined: 29-November 04

Posted 19 March 2005 - 06:56 PM

This bill dosen't define virtual caches as GeoCacheing and where does the offset cache fall in all this? I guess there are some details that are missing. Do the law makers realy understand what GeoCaching is about? If cache owners respect the land why try to control them? In any event it can not be good. :P

Share this topic:


  • (7 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked